VANCOUVER. December 13. A stormy three day Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ended today in Vancouver. The Tribunal presided over by Athanasios Hadjis was investigating a complaint made by perpetual complainer Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman about posts critical of interracial sex, same sex marriage and immigration by 21-year old Jessica Beaumont of Calgary. In the course of cross-examination by Paul Fromm, representing Miss Beaumont who is unable to afford a lawyer, Richard Warman refused to give a "yes" or "no" answer as to whether he still works for the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Barbara Kulaszka, lawyer for webmaster Marc Lemire who is also a victim of a Warman complaint and who is launching a constitutional challenge against the Internet censorship portion, Section 13.1., of the Canadian Human Rights Act, commented on learning of this: "If Mr. Warman works in any capacity for the Commission, either on contract or as an employee, this is obviously something which should have been revealed. ... It bears clearly on the issue of whether this whole proceeding is an abuse of the process by the Commission and the constitutionality of Section 13.1."

The hearings started out with considerable tension. Complainant Richard Warman had argued vehemently against postponing the hearing against co-accused Ciaran Donnelly, Miss Beaumont's boyfriend. Mr. Donnelly had had serious knee surgery. Additional complications have developed, including cancer which will require chemotherapy. Mr. Donnelly is lame, in serious pain, is on morphine and cannot sleep at night. Nevertheless, the ghoulish Warman wanted the victim dragged to the hearing and the show trial to continue. At the last minute, after further medical evidence was submitted by Paul Fromm, Mr. Donnelly's hearing was postponed but the Tribunal plunged ahead against the remaining available victim Miss Beaumont.

The Tribunal "members" or judge take themselves very seriously. They like to enter hearings from a separate entrance from the public or parties (as in a real court). The facilities at the Vancouver Convention Centre didn't seem to provide this separate entrance. The 9:30 start of proceedings was delayed until a way could be found to route Mr. Hadjis along a back fire corridor for his dramatic entrance. Meanwhile the defence team went for coffee. They were amazed to find the hearing already in session when they returned at 10:00. A heated exchange ensued between Mr. Fromm on behalf of Jessica Beaumont and Member Hadjis. Fromm wondered why, if they were going to start the proceedings without the defence who had been there on time, why not just shoot the victim and get it over with.

Fromm's first motion was to permit the late introduction of an expert witness, Jud Ireland of Vancouver. So arrogant has the Commission become in these Sec. 13.1 cases that they no longer lead expert evidence to try to prove that the postings are "likely to expose" the privileged groups to hatred or contempt. Mr. Ireland who advised Premier Vander Zalm and is a published author and experienced communicator would have testified that Miss Beaumont's postings would not have exposed anyone to hate. Warman and Commission counsel Giacomo Vigna objected that they had not had enough notice. Mr. Fromm answered that he was flabbergasted that Miss Beaumont had been forced to proceed alone and had been certain that the hearings would be postponed until the New Year. In the end, Hadjis refused to allow the defence to present Mr . Ireland.

On the stand, Miss Beaumont explained that she was posting her views essentially for other like-minded friends on Stormfront who discussed issues back and forth. Cross-examined by Mr. Vigna, she was asked: "Did you realize you were exposing yourself by posting on the Internet? " The guileless Miss Beaumont replied: "Somebody will always be offended. I'll always be offending someone."

Mr. Vigna made it clear that the CHRC is a political police force, seeking to root out dissent. He charged that some of her postings " were fundamentally against multiculturalism and the Canadian Human Rights Act." Then, he asked: "Doesn't it matter which people you might have offended or hurt with your postings? "People's feeling get hurt, no matter what," Miss Beaumont shot back. "My postings were for people who are White and proud."

The hearing learned that Richard Warman had directed his tactic of "maximum disruption, shutting down the neo-Nazis by (almost) any means necessary" against Miss Beaumont and Mr. Donnelly. After filing the complaint, he had called the Coquitlam paper The Now, according to Miss Beaumont and told it they should expose her and Mr. Donnelly as he was in the Ku Klux Klan -- an assertion which is false. Warman was evasive when Mr. Fromm asked him about his praise of the tactic of "outing." Warman claimed the term meant a demonstration. "Outing" means trying to publicly expose someone and inflame his neighbours against him. Miss Beaumont also revealed that Warman had filed a complaint under Canada's notorious "hate law" , Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code. This complaint led to a July, 2006 police raid on their townhouse, where they were humiliated and put off their property onto the curb in their pyjamas, until neighbours brought them blankets and lawn chairs.

Apparently, smugly certain that the case is in the bag, Mr. Warman didn't show up on the last day of the hearing to make his final submissions. He sent them by e-mail. A visibly upset Athanasios Hadjis rebuked Warman and gave the defence a month to respond in writing to Warman's arguments.

Paul Fromm argued that Stormfront is a White nationalist website and is clearly so marked as even Richard Warman admitted. It is a discussion group of like-minded people (except for police spies and snoops like Warman.) He argued that, as such, it is private communication and being posted only once the messages are not communicated "repeatedly" as envisioned by the wording of Sec. 319. He also argued that the comments were not hate. As well, he added, it was significant that groups like Jews and homosexuals are established and well organized in Vancouver and ought to know whether they are being exposed to "hatred or contempt." Interestingly, it was not a Jewish or homosexual group that made the complaint, nor did representatives of these groups seek to intervene or even attend the hearings. The complaint was made by Richard Warman, a professional complainer with a political agenda, in far off Ottawa. Mr. Fromm urged that the complaint be dismissed as vexatious and an abuse of process. The decision is not expected for some months.

In the course of cross-examination by Paul Fromm, representing Miss Beaumont who is unable to afford a lawyer, Richard Warman refused to give a "yes" or "no" answer as to whether he still works for the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Warman should be in contempt of court for that. In a courtroom you do not have the right to refuse to answer a question unless the Judge rules the question as not relevant.

Warman being a member, or not being a member, of the very political body he is using to persecute people, is relevant. At least to the sane anyhow.

This one incident is proof enough that the whole CHRC should be disbanded, & any further matters should be in a regular court.